Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think you're not allowed to be a feminist on MN if you believe in trans rights?

700 replies

EyeRollChampion · 03/05/2018 10:54

Seems like every post in the feminism category atm is so vehemently anti-trans rights and that anyone who disagrees with this standpoint is ganged up on and ridiculed.

Or 'aren't I brave posting the same viewpoint as the overwhelming majority? I will not be silenced! (Now tell me how amazing and inspirational I am)'

I will probably be told I'm not a good feminist for believing we should respect the gender people identify with. Identity is of no importance to equal rights or mental health, of course. And they're a minority so who cares? Because changing room horror.

I'll get flamed for this because apparently this is not a view you're allowed to hold on mumsnet, TRA (aka anyone who isn't against trans rights) are the enemy of all women and trying to deny free speech.

Tell me I'm not alone?

OP posts:
NoSquirrels · 06/05/2018 09:51

Relief I think you were responding to the question "What rights do trans people NOT have?" when you wrote this:

First right would be the removal of the requirement to have lives for two years as a woman before obtaining a gender recognition certificate. This is important because this period of transitioning is the most dangerous to women.

In effect this will mean no change, since most if not all organisations and charity already recognise this and include it in their guidelines when giving access to support services. But it does grant it as a right, rather than best practise.

So it does appear than in opposing self-ID you are seeking to take away rights.

I haven't followed this. This is a right trans people do not currently have (to be treated as their preferred gender before 2 years of transition have passed) but which they want and self ID will allow.
Some organisations recognise that it can be appropriate to ignore the legal 2-year requirement in certain circumstances (where trans people are most vulnerable e.g. Rape Crisis) as "best practise".

As it is not a "right" in law yet, opposing self ID is not "taking away" that right - because it doesn't yet exist.

ReluctantCamper · 06/05/2018 10:03

So, just to summarise, we still don't have a sensible answer to the question

what rights do trans people currently not have

If one of the people accusing FWR posters of wanting to infringe on trans rights could pop along and answer that would be peachy.

ReliefOfChaos · 06/05/2018 10:05

Pretty sure I did, squirrel's hair splitting notwithstanding. I really don't see how it's possible you could consider that question unanswered, or that you are incapable of looking at the reams of information on this for yourself.

ReluctantCamper · 06/05/2018 10:06

I said sensible answer my love

MillicentF · 06/05/2018 10:09

OK. Is that the only right that transpeople do not have?

NoSquirrels · 06/05/2018 10:16

@ReliefofChaos I really was not trying to split hairs. You said opposing Self ID was taking away trans people's rights.

I do have a problem with that, because I don't wish to take away any one's existing rights. I just don't want anyone to take away women and girls' existing rights either.

ReliefOfChaos · 06/05/2018 10:18

Astonishingly no it is not, Millicent. It extends non-discrimination legislation to people without them having to apply for recognition not to be discriminated against.

This stiff is tough to argue against, I guess. That's why the only approach I'm seeing here is feigning ignorance and sticking fingers in ears screaming "I don't see any legitimate arguments".

jellyfrizz · 06/05/2018 10:25

It extends non-discrimination legislation to people without them having to apply for recognition not to be discriminated against.

The Equalities Act already allows for this. You don’t need a GRC to be covered by non-discrimination legislation.

MillicentF · 06/05/2018 10:27

“Astonishingly no it is not, Millicent. It extends non-discrimination legislation to people without them having to apply for recognition not to be discriminated against.”

I honestly don’t understand this. Surely this is covered by current legislation?

Idontdowindows · 06/05/2018 10:28

Still there is no answer to the question what rights trans people do not have that they are entitled to.

ReliefOfChaos · 06/05/2018 10:31

Kind of... section 7 of the act is fairly broad, but it makes it law.

ReliefOfChaos · 06/05/2018 10:32

So what will change? I think is the next question. The answer is... not much, really. So why the opposition? That's a good question. What rights do you think will be taken away from women by self-ID?

MillicentF · 06/05/2018 10:33

So, specifically, what rights do trans people not have?

Rufustheyawningreindeer · 06/05/2018 10:37

The whole thing alienates feminists who think there is room for more nuance and less anger.

This is the bit that I don't understand

I do think there is room for more nuance, I have said eleventy billion times that i have no problem with trans women, no big issue with them being in the bogs and changing rooms etc. and ive said it on threads

There are other posters on FWR that think the same. But everyone comes on here saying the same stuff...all FWR is like this, all FWR is transphobic, FWR comes over as right wing

When in reality there are a mass of posters who all have different opinions and lines in the sand

And yes ...some posters are pissed!! Really pissed and angry and shouty and sweary...but thats their choice

Its no good saying FWR is this and that unless you are prepared to post on here and possibly change the zeitgeist

I know its been compared before but its no good saying im not going on the dog house board cos some people are getting very caps loggy about french bulldogs!!

Threads on aibu about UC, if you look its pretty much 20/40 the 20% aren't sitting there going oh masses of people disagree and they are using caps locks so i wont go on there

And they certainly arent posting 'people dont go on aibu becuase some people are angry'

ReliefOfChaos · 06/05/2018 10:38

Specifically - for the third time - the right to BE trans people without requiring the approval of a panel of experts.

NoSquirrels · 06/05/2018 10:38

Relief I will bite, although I'm not sure I should,a s you haven't yet managed to clearly articulate what rights trans people are seeking via self ID that they don;t yet have.

What rights do you think will be taken away from women by self-ID?

That the right to be considered a woman in law is based on either A) biological sex or B) independently verified expert opinion that someone wishing to live as the opposite gender is legitimate and offers no threat to women and girls by doing so.

NoSquirrels · 06/05/2018 10:40

Ah! OK...

Specifically - for the third time - the right to BE trans people without requiring the approval of a panel of experts.

People can BE trans already. They just cannot BE the opposite sex legally without a panel of experts. Which is not unreasonable in my opinion.

Rufustheyawningreindeer · 06/05/2018 10:41

Its TONE policing that causes the problems on here if you ask me

Thats what gets people REALLY angry

You can't say this or that, you are too harsh

So what!! Dont be harsh yourself, keep your tone moderate (if thats what you want)

But dont stop people from being angry if they want and need to be

ReluctantCamper · 06/05/2018 10:42

Regarding FWR being scary.

I opened this thread about checking your passports this morning and backed out swiftly.

The OP was only trying to be helpful and people were revolting. That was in Chat FFS.

I don't see people saying they're too scared to go in there I am now a bit

ReliefOfChaos · 06/05/2018 10:44

"That the right to be considered a woman in law is based on either A) biological sex or B) independently verified expert opinion that someone wishing to live as the opposite gender is legitimate and offers no threat to women and girls by doing so."

So you think you have the right to the purity of your group based on genetics or governmental approval? At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, do you not see a problem with that?

Rufustheyawningreindeer · 06/05/2018 10:47

Oh i saw that reluctant

I read the first post and thought

Shhhiiiiit...thats not going to go well

And she was being so helpful...why post like that!!

People are weird

ReluctantCamper · 06/05/2018 10:50

I wonder if 'FWR is mean' actually means 'I don't get away with just being horrible and am instead expected to back up my arguments?'

Could be....

Rufustheyawningreindeer · 06/05/2018 10:50

maisy??

Have you read what this poster is saying

This is important because this period of transitioning is the most dangerous to women

Idontdowindows · 06/05/2018 10:51

Specifically - for the third time - the right to BE trans people without requiring the approval of a panel of experts.

They already have that right. So, next right.

Rufustheyawningreindeer · 06/05/2018 10:52

When relief

Says 'women' they mean transwomen

So FWR are getting the blame for something they haven't said, this seems to happen a fair bit

Swipe left for the next trending thread